Talk:Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant stars
From Talk:Hobus Name origin I don't recall the star being identified as Hobus. I'm sure Spock Prime only mentioned "a star". -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Romulan sun would seem to be more specific, as the meld montage suggested. --Alan 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::It's named in the graphic novel Star Trek: Countdown. Also, the star would not have been the Romulan sun since Spock states that it went nova and then he offered to help the Romulans. Had the star in question been the Romulan star, it would have destroyed Romulus before Spock could have offered aid. In the graphic novel it is explained that the Hobus star is an unusual nova which keeps expanding and threatens the entire galaxy which is why Spock had to create the singularity to stop it. A normal nova would not have required anything to stop it as it would stop itself naturally. IndyK1ng 02:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) :::The question is whether the name "Hobus" comes from production staff working on the film or from the writers of Star Trek: Countdown. Per the , we can use the name "Hobus" if it was used in production or reference material, but if it was made up for the (non-canon, by our rules) comic, then we can't. —Josiah Rowe 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::I could be wrong, but if I recall correctly the graphic novel expanded on information provided in production material. I would think that the name Hobus would come from this material since almost everything else from the graphic novel which was revealed in the film coincided with the graphic novel. The only things which appeared different were if Spock's ship had others aboard and if Nero had attempted to help Spock stop the nova. The origins of the ship appear to line up with some details in the graphic novel. IndyK1ng 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::::It may be worth noting that Countdown was written by Tim Jones & Mike Johnson, who apparently had some collaboration with Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci, I'm not commenting one way or the other as to whether that lends any legitimacy to the subject or not, I'm just bringing it up. Either way, for the depiction of the events surrounding the Hobus star's explosion to make any sense at all then some aspect of subspace would have to somehow be involved, otherwise the explosion would take years just to reach another star system anyway and it's force probably wouldn't be all that great by then. Just thought food. Foravalon 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::As is stated in countdown, it's a very special nova. Whether Countdown is canon or not still remains in question however. You're point makes sense if Countdown is not canon since the point I stated above about the Romulan star destroying Romulus too quickly for events to occur the way they did also makes sense. I'll be watching the movie again later today and will let you guys know if its named in the film or not. IndyK1ng 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ::::: For what it's worth, here's my theory. From the countdown comics we know it was Hobus, so I'm going to run with that until someone decides it is or isn't cannon. We know the Decalithium (or whatever it was they used to create red matter) was in the system. Under certain conditions red matter creates a black hole. What if the conditions of the nova created a different substance, that made a white hole? Now it's been a long time, but I remember reading an article that said white holes spew matter, where as black holes absorb it. Maybe a white hole fueled the supernova, making it go farther then anyone could ever imagine. As for speed, who knows. Another effect of the white hole perhaps? Anyway, we'll probably never know for sure. But it's fun to discuss. ::::::From a TrekMovie.com interview with Roberto Orci: :::::::TrekMovie: Well the bigger issue is more Trek movie prequel comic "Star Trek: Countdown" and whether or not that is considered canon. That is not a promotional thing, that is a.... thing thing. Your name, JJ's name is on it and Alex's name is on it. So canon or not canon? :::::::Roberto Orci: I don't think that is for me to decide. As you know I considered some of the books, in my mind, to be of character canon. And some of them in between the movies to possibly be even possible candidates for canon, until some other movie comes along and makes those impossible. That is my personal view, but I am not going to declare whether comics are canon. ::::::My vote is on keeping it as Hobus unless a future TV series or movie renames it.--WTRiker 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::Is there a reason this needs to be stated twice on one page? --OuroborosCobra talk 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Countdown: a canon source? Someone correct me if I am wrong, but where is there question on whether "Countdown" is canon? As far as I understand it, there isn't any. I've seen no announcement from Paramount that they are canon, only from J.J. Abrams. Abrams doesn't decide what is canon for either Paramount or MA. Certainly our own policies are very clear on the subject. I don't see this as a "wait and see" situation, if the comics are the only source. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :From what i understand it was supposed to be released along with the movie, and was written with information from the production staff. How close they are tied together, I really don't know. And of course I could be misinformed. It doesn't matter if it was supposed to be released along with the movie, that doesn't make it stop being a comic. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :And the encyclopedia is just a book released in close cooperation to Paramount and people working on the show, yet everything in there is considered cannon, even the names of ships and classes that were never named on screen. Most of those names are also on this site, the Freedom class is one example. Should we take those off cause it was just a book? ::Comparing apples and oranges (or, in this case, a non-canon source vs. a production resource) won't help your case any. The reasons the stuff in the Encyclopedia is considered canon is because it all appeared on-screen and therefore is canon. For the record, not everything in the Encyclopedia is canon; sometimes the authors give speculation which can be added as background info but not as canon info. --From Andoria with Love 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :So then calling the single necelled ship in BOBW Federation class is non-cannon, yet it appears on this site as cannon. My point is something that is released in cooperation to what is on screen, be it the encyclopedia or 'just a comic book' should at least be considered. ::If we can get a production resource which names the star as "Hobus", we can use that. We can't use the comic, though; there is currently no way of knowing whether that name was created by Orci & Kurtzman (which are considered production resources since the wrote/executive produced) or if it was created by the writers of the book, which means it is outside the production side and therefore cannot be used. If we can find some valid proof that Orci/Kurtzman called the star "Hobus" in the script, then we can have the page at "Hobus" or "Hobus star." --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :Well according to this: , Orci and Kurtzman were part of the writing staff for the comics. I really don't know if that means much, but it's a piece of information I offer for consideration. The article also says they haven't declared it cannon, but have no problem with it being cannon until something directly contradicts it on screen.-- 04:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Many novels are written by people involved in making episodes and movies. Doesn't make them canon. Only one thing can, one thing only, Paramount saying they are. They haven't done so, they are non-canon. There isn't anything else to consider. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::For the record, we have already considered whether or not to make the comics canon. It was a brief discussion, but everyone decided against it, as I recall. --From Andoria with Love 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC) :::I just came across the article in question, after having finished reading the Countdown comic miniseries. After reading the article and reading the points raised here, I re-read the . From it, the following is very clear: the name Hobus is not canon and is therefore not acceptable here if the source of the name is the Countdown comic miniseries. However, it is not just the star's name being Hobus that is canonically questionable; the article's statement that "The star's eruptions days earlier not only obliterated surrounding planets but also converted the planets' mass into energy, increasing the star's power" comes from Issue 1 of the Countdown series. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I see, the entire article is based on information from Countdown. I suggest giving it to Memory Beta. It is not acceptable here. – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| hears you...]] 02:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC) :::: I don't think the posters above were arguing that Countdown is canon-- they were arguing that Countdown, though a non-canon source, nevertheless reflects actual production information in relation to the Hobus star (or at least its name.) :::: I took the "wait and see" comment not to mean "wait and see if Countdown is canon" (since that will not change) but rather "wait and see if the name crops up in other materials." If the name Hobus appears in the novelization, toy packaging bios etc... then it probably originated on the production side. :::: Normally 'wait and see' is not consistent with policy, but because there is strong circumstantial evidence that the name did come from the production team (and every reason to believe the matter will be settled definitively in the near/mid-term future) it would be better to leave the article where it is (possibly with a caution note?) rather than move it to something vague like "Galaxy destroying Supernova" or possibly even misleading like "Romulan Supernova." (Which implies Romulus's sun.) ::::(For my part, the fast-forward nature of the backstory-dump in the movie and the eye-crossingly insane nature of the "supernova" leads me to favor the idea that Countdown is probably reflecting canonical backstory which the movie simply cut.) - 06:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) :::::Right now the name is not valid per our current policy. Orci+Kurtzman seem to be very helpful though, maybe ask them during one of their next interviews on trekmovie. com?-This would make the name valid. Or we get access to script/writer's bible. Kennelly 17:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ::::::From a TrekMovie.com interview with Roberto Orci: :::::::TrekMovie: Well the bigger issue is more Trek movie prequel comic "Star Trek: Countdown" and whether or not that is considered canon. That is not a promotional thing, that is a.... thing thing. Your name, JJ's name is on it and Alex's name is on it. So canon or not canon? :::::::Roberto Orci: I don't think that is for me to decide. As you know I considered some of the books, in my mind, to be of character canon. And some of them in between the movies to possibly be even possible candidates for canon, until some other movie comes along and makes those impossible. That is my personal view, but I am not going to declare whether comics are canon. ::::::My vote is on keeping it as Hobus unless a future TV series or movie renames it.--WTRiker 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :Why? Your quotes confirm that it isn't up to them to declare it canon, and Paramount hasn't. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :::::: I figure, until it is renamed in another TV series or film, we keep it as Hobus, as ST: Countdown is semi-canon and there, really is nothing better to call it, besides something akin to "unnamed Romulan Star Empire star". --WTRiker 23:19, October 13, 2009 (UTC) :::::::As explained above countdown is not even semi-canon. You can't just make canon from something that isn't unless paramount has said so. The comic isn't even a permitted resource. Also, there's nothing that says Hobus is even a Romulan star system. — Morder (talk) 23:24, October 13, 2009 (UTC) :::There are no viable grounds for argument that it should be kept. The fact is, it is not canon, an so according to MA policy, it is inappropriate here. I repeat my suggestion: give it to Memory Beta. In fact, I'm surprised it did not get onto the list of pages for deletion. – ''Crimsondawn''[[User Talk:Crimsondawn| Talk yuh talk]] 23:36, October 13, 2009 (UTC) Star Trek: Star Charts Reference? Does anybody know if Hobus is named in the Star Trek: Star Charts book? It would be a nice touch if they picked a nearby star from that book. However, given how lazy and disrespectful they were to the other tenets of Trek science I suspect they named on the spot. Probably after their pet hamster. Drmick 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :How dare they make up a name, instead of using a name from that other book, where names were made up? :D :No, apparently this name is not from STSC... but, hey, it's not from the movie either. -- Cid Highwind 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Until I read this wiki, I had assumed it was Romulus' star! Which angered me because you would have thought the wandering Vulcans would have noticed that when they settled there. Still should have noticed the nearby impending nova anyhow thouh, so I'm still angry. Grrrr. Drmick 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::I actually thought the new movie was quite respectful of Trek history, aside from relocating Delta Vega and creating another universe. I mean, Nemesis made up a new weapon chemical, what was wrong with that? Just because Star Trek is old does not mean that you can't have something new. Nothing is going to break if you improvise. ::And, anyway, Star Charts was written long before the movie. Merge suggestion The fact remains that the name of this star is non-canon. The name was created for the comic book and, unlike Teral'n, the term does not appear in the script or on any merchandise. I have thus suggested this be merged with unnamed stars. --From Andoria with Love 16:13, December 5, 2009 (UTC) :I agree. We should keep "Hobus" as a non-canon redirect though. -- sulfur 16:15, December 5, 2009 (UTC) Agreed. --From Andoria with Love 16:21, December 5, 2009 (UTC) From Talk:Sigma Draconis Reference You know, I have never been able to find a reference to this star in any of my sources, I only know the spectral type because they mention it in dialog. But you know I'd love to know where you are getting your base information on this system. --TOSrules 07:26, Nov 13, 2004 (CET) :Here's one source: http://www.solstation.com/stars/sigdraco.htm -- Inconceivable The old Star Trek series suffered from the limits they put on star names used -- usually familiar to amateur astronomers. Either they were inconceivably close for the story premise, or inconceivably far away, or not likely to support the story in some way (too large or bright or unstable a star). In the case of Sigma Draconis, being only 18 light years away, it is inconceivable that the system had not been extensively explored before the incidents of "Spock's Brain". It appears to have been charted by little more than an automated probe and perhaps a pass by a manned vessel (a merchant ship, perhaps). Surely it would have been visited by Archer's Enterprise or the sister ship Columbia, and after the Xindi destroyed Earth ("Twilight"), humans could have scattered in various place, including settling in the equatorial regions of Sigma Draconis VI. Since there was no prime directive at the time, humans could have also hidden by establishing settlements on SD III and IV, isolated from the rest of the populations. Rigel was very over-used, and perhaps the producers should have done careful checks on stars before they were used in a script, and then kept a record for back-checks. Rigel has several uses implying several planets that are used, including a "cabaret" on Rigel II, a dilithium mine on Rigil XII, the fortress and Kalor on Rigil VII. In addition, it was the next target of the doomsday machine, which was still close to the edge of the galaxy (either the outer rim or one flank). Gcapp1959 07:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Merge into unnamed stars It seems that the term "Sigma Draconis" without "system" or a numeral behind it was used once , but it's pretty clear that it was used not as a term for the star, but rather as shorthand for the Sigma Draconis system. However, since the unnamed star was discussed and this page covers that info, it would be better to merge this page in unnamed stars (while still pointing the redirect to point to the system), rather then merging it into the system as might be more logical at first sight. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:18, April 15, 2015 (UTC) From Talk:Tarchannen This star is not named in the episode nor in the script, so I suggest this article be merged with Unnamed Alpha and Beta Quadrant stars. -- Memphis77 (talk) 10:14, September 4, 2016 (UTC) :Support then. Kennelly (talk) 13:21, September 26, 2016 (UTC) ::Support 06:17, November 21, 2016 (UTC) :::Seems logical. -- LauraCC (talk) 16:48, November 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Support -- Defiant (talk) 17:24, November 21, 2016 (UTC) From Talk:Monac Was this called "Monac" or just the "Monac sun"? Right now this page exists here, and at the other link as well. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 12:41, July 14, 2017 (UTC) :In the , the primary is called either Monac Four's sun or Monac's sun. In the episode, it is not given a name and is referred to as "sun".--Memphis77 (talk) 01:55, October 12, 2017 (UTC) ::Alright then, let's merge this. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:58, October 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Support, given the above. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:31, February 3, 2018 (UTC) Romulan sun Now that we know this is the star that went boom in 2387, it seems important enough to warrant its own article. We have Bajoran sun as a precedent. Also, maybe we should have Romulan supernova as a redirect to the new page? - Mitchz95 (talk) 04:11, January 24, 2020 (UTC)